This truck is the archetype of all pickups, in all its simple but beautiful essence. If you grew up in the fifties or sixties, these Chevy’s are probably as deeply ingrained into your formative years’ memory banks as they are mine. We moved to Iowa in 1960, and these were everywhere, still hard at work on the small family farms of the time. The facts are that Chevy was the number one seller back than, and I suspect it was by a large margin, because Fords, Dodges and Internationals just weren’t anywhere near as ubiquitous as these. And that’s carried forward through the decades to today.

When I moved back to Iowa in 1971, the hippies and kids were all buying them for peanuts from the retiring farmers. At the time when Dylan and Rock was all going country, this was the cool ride to just be seen in or for hauling a load of manure to the organic garden. The placid hum of their 216 cubic inch “stovebolt” sixes was as much a part of the aural background then as Working Man’s Dead. Only once did I hear that venerable motor being abused beyond belief, and I won’t soon forget that:

When we lived a few blocks from the Pacific in Santa Monica in the late seventies, there was a rather volatile young couple who had two of these pickups as well as a small Chevy school bus of the same vintage that they lived in part of the year. They rented a garage facing the alley behind our apartment building, where they spent the winters; in the garage that is (they were ahead of their times that way).

One night I heard the distinctive sound of a stovebolt six running wide open in first gear, its rpm only limited by valve float. I went out to the back stair landing to see the young woman repeatedly barreling the tortured Chevy up and down the alley, and every time she passed the garage, the guy would throw a piece of their furniture out in front of the truck, presumably in a vain attempt to stop it/her. The combination of cracking wood and the wailing Chevy bumping over mattresses, dressers and chairs are seared into my memory. Eventually, she tired of pounding their furniture into a pulp and drove off. I could hear the the screaming Chevy for blocks, until it slowly melded into the background noise. There was quite a mess in the alley the next morning.

The point I’m trying to make is that these old trucks are hard to stop or kill, even in the most trying of domestic circumstances. And rust-free Chevys of this vintage were easy and cheap picking in the agricultural valleys of California until well into the eighties. And now: well, I’ve got about a half a dozen of them in my files, but this is my favorite one by far: just the right amount of patina and ready-to-go-to-work condition. So what made these trucks so wonderful, venerable and indestructible, even in the face of a determined hurler of furniture?

In an interesting preview of GM’s future priorities, the Chevy (and GMC) “Advanced Design” trucks were GM’s first all-new post-was vehicles. They arrived in June 1947, over a year before the new ’49 Chevy cars. And iIt was a dramatic improvement over its predecessor; cute as the thirties pickups were, their cabs were claustrophobic and lacked visibility. Not so with our featured truck, which has the optional rear-quarter windows. And the cabs were wide enough for three guys whose bodies still reflected a pre-Mega-Gulp diet and plenty of physical work.

They were built right through into 1955, with just minimal changes. If my source is correct, this is a ’51 by virtue of having the vent windows (new for that year), but not having the push-button door handles that came in ’52. For that matter, this is a late ’51, because it has eight boards in the bed instead of nine. Not that it matters that much to me, but I don’t want to let the historians down.

Chevy’s engine didn’t need to be redone though; the venerable 92 hp 216 cubic inch OHV six had been around since 1937, and was a well-proven lump, despite its primitive non-fully pressurized lubrication system. It churned out a steady flow of torque right from idle speed, as I well remember as a ten year-old driving one a few times at the neighbors of the Mennonite farm where I spent my youthful summers. I was used to dumping the clutch on the Farmalls, and the Chevy took it just as well. It was no joke trying to give it gas and let out the clutch simultaneously while practically standing up to see over the dash and hood.

I could go on all night waxing and reminiscing about these old Chevys, but it’s already 11:42 PM. But this won’t be the last old Chevy truck I post, so we’ll save some of it for then. And you probably have plenty of good stuff to add. Just in case you’re wondering why I drive a ’66 Ford F-100 instead of one of these, look in the bed: I don’t feel like replacing rotted wood boards, or raising splinters with my shovel on them. But in the Niedermeyer Fantasy Garage, there’s a space for this truck waiting, and in exactly this condition: enough patina to show that it hasn’t forgotten what it was made to do: work. As well as revive lots of good memories. Unless you’re the one who had their furniture run over by one.

41 Comments

Nice old truck theres a few of these left here most seem to have been rodded though we had mostly Bedfords from the late 40s onwards basicly British built Chevs 216 cube 6s but full pressure feed and 4 speeds and open driveshafts which will retro fit into Chevys youd like em Paul nothin flash just a work truck.

Back in the late 1960’s, while still in high school, a friend’s dad had his own body shop business and to think of all the cool cars I could have bought if I had money…

Anyway, his dad had a 1951 Chevy pickup. he repainted it a light purple and put a large daisy decal on each door and called it the “love truck”. Man, I wanted to buy that, but as I had no job at the time, thus no money, well, I had to make do with my 61 Bel-Air 2 door sedan.

That was one very sharp truck. Ahhh…memories!

I have a Chevy 1947 truck shop manual available to the right owner, too. 216 babbitt-beaters forever!

These trucks were like Kryptonite to a young boy growing up in the ’60s and ’70’s.
If you came upon one while wandering the neighborhood, like kids did at one time, it would softly call to you.
You would approach slowly and note the faint aroma of oil and experience…take a peek into the cabin and be taken back in time. The 3 pedals, column shifter, the metal dash, so primitive and alluring.
And if you were lucky enough to hear the engine, always seeming to rev higher than it had to while the driver released the clutch. And the exhaust eminating from the magnificently simple tailpipe. Heaven…

This is one of those vehicles that makes me wonder: are its lines really that perfect? Or are we just conditioned to think of them as such because we have seen so many of these over the years. I suspect that it is some of both.

This truck really is the perfectly proportioned and styled truck from 1950 and a few years on either end. Several years ago, a local Old Navy store was using one of these as part of an in-store merchandising display. It was pained dull air force blue. I wanted it.

MarcKyle, both engines technically fit. However there some changes…here are a few off the top of my head:

1) The 292 six is a totally different engine, based on the 230 that was introduced in 1963, replacing the 216/235/261. I don’t remember if there are provisions for front motor mounts on the newer 6’s. You’d definitely have to change the bellhousing, but the trans should bolt up.

2) For the 350, you’d need a side-motor-mount kit and change the bellhousing. Again the trans should bolt up.

However since either engine would be vastly more powerful than the old Stovebolt Six, you’d probably want to change the tranny…which would involve changing the driveshaft and rear end, since these Chevy trucks used a “torque tube”, bolted directly to the back of the transmission and the front of the rear axle to make the entire drivetrain a single unit. The driveshaft rode inside the torque tube.

Also the newer bellhousing may require adapting to the older frame. Stick-shift Chevy trucks had their rear motor mounts on the bellhousing thru 1972 but the mounts may or may not bolt up. If you go automatic or use a bellhousing newer than 1972 you’ll need to go to the modern-day GM rear trans mount.

And you’d have to upgrade the electrical system to 12 volt.

Sounds like a lot of work but it’s a road often travelled and the parts needed should only be a few mouse clicks away.

Full disclosure: I’ve never done this particular swap but my guesstimates are based on previous experience with other old Chevies and the brand’s near universal interchangeability from 1955 into the ’90’s and beyond.

BTW Paul, I did have one of these trucks back in 1974 – a ’51 (first year for vent windows, last year before push button door handles) 3/4 ton. Never did get it running because I never could figure out the 6-volt electrical system. I’d own one today but I already have two projects: a ’57 Handyman like wstarvingteacher, and a ’68 Chevy C-10 2WD 8-foot Fleetside. Only so much time and $$…and a house to finish first. That’s my 2012 project…

MarcKyle – I think the universal swap to rid yourself of the babbit bearing curse was the 235. I know someone will correct me if I have this wrong, however:
I think it was a bolt in;
It came out in 1954 and the insert bearings added to it’s longevity;
If you wanted to go 12volt – chevy did in 55 and this was your easy way. It was around for centuries (or maybe 1963);
Clifford made 6=8 with that engine; and,
There were no issues with steering column like with the v8 swaps in early chev’s.

The 235 would bolt right in. So would a 261. They’re the same engine family. I don’t know if the 1st series ’55 used 12 volts. If it did, fantastic. Although I wonder if the gauges are the same since the dash was redesigned for ’54.

My best friend in high school had a ’55 1st series GMC (still has it, in fact) and it had a 6-volt positive ground electrical system. I know this because we had to jump start it one night and we were afraid the battery would explode because, being 17, we didn’t know the correct procedure. Turned out, we hooked it up right, but neither of us wanted to reach in and hit the starter button (floor button for the starter, and the battery is under the seat. Not the best position to be in if the battery goes “boom”)

My Grandpa had a ’53 3600 (3/4 ton) complete with the corner windows like this one on his farm. The shot inside the cab in particular brings back memories, but his had the pushbutton tube-type radio. The truck was still running in the 1980’s.

The other details I remember are the foot pedal starter and hand throttle. I think the that was for equipment that might be run from the Power Takeoff Opening on the transmission, like a tow truck winch or such.

After I retired from the Navy and started working as a civilian (harder but generally less dangerous), I found myself with an abundance of old cars and I did not live close to the cache. One of them was a 1940 IHC pickup that had been painted farmall red. Flathead six and 4 speed (3 and grandma).

It was inside but I needed to sell the house. Because it was in Kansas and I was in Texas, I was faced with a choice of getting rid of it or fixing it fast. I focused on the 57 wagon and gave the pickup to my nephew. He was local and had inside storage while fixing.

I find myself with almost equal amounts of relief and regret. Depends on when you catch me as to what you will hear. It had been my brothers truck and it’s still in the family. I still have a 63 vw beetle that’s stranded up there. If the buyer were more prompt in her payments she would have grounds to fuss at me. Don’t know where I’m going with that just yet.

I’m right there with ya…my wife would like me to keep our ’91 Caprice wagon but if I do eventually I’ll want to redo it, so it’s for sale now. Great stone-cold reliable ride but I don’t see keeping it and my Handyman and ’68 Chevy C-10.

I also wish we’d have kept the ’74 “Spirit of America” Nova my wife had when we were dating. And the ’75 V-8 4-speed 30MPG Monza that replaced it. And the ’69 Camaro convertible I had before the Nova.

I agree this is indeed a very nice truck. My oldest memories (due to my age) are of my great uncles Chevy Apache pickup. But, realizing opinions are like butts, give me my new Silverado any day. The creature comforts of A/C, satellite radio and the ability to go anywhere, anytime, in any condition. Trucks have truly come a long way. The smell of the inside of that Apache is still in my mind.

On another note, my brother in laws dad had a 1974 El Camino. He traded that on a 1976? 454 Chevy Truck that had the Silverado package. We would flip the air cleaner lid over and damn would those beasts suck air. Great memories!

The story of the flathead six being abused by an angry, female, non-mechanically-inclined driver…gives me thought.

The OHC/OHV layout is proven, and more efficient….but not so resistant to destruction. Indeed, a tossed timing belt can destroy even the most carefully-babied engine, if engineers didn’t think to cast notches in the pistons for clearance. Add to that, all the cam lobes worn off from insufficient lubrication; all the ruined engines from improperly-torqued head bolts…I wonder…

…if there’s some room in modern design concepts to bring out a new, fuel-injected flathead design. Give it some breathing capacity with a cross-flow design (valves on opposite sides of the block)…but with that old rugged ability to toss off abuse; where when it’s overreved, the valves float – not drop; and not toss the timing belt.

Hot Rod Magazine has been there and done that, albeit with a flathead ford v8. They faced some ridicule for doing it with a flathead but I was all there. It would make a blown head gasket a piece of cake.

Actually, the Chevy stovebolt 6 was one of the few overhead valve engines from before WWII. The other well-known one was the Buick 8.

I think that there was one such engine up until quite recently: the Chrysler 3.3 V6. An agricultural, cast iron, low stressed pushrod V6 that may be the most durable engine of modern times. Until my 99 Town and Country recently ate its transmission, my 3.3 was still using less than a quart of oil in 3K (at over 200K total miles.)

I read a story on one of the forums while I owned that car. A guy told of a neighbor with a 3.3-equipped minivan. The guy wanted a new vehicle, but his wife did not want to spend the money. So, he decided to stop oil changes so that the van would kill itself. After a long time (I forget how long) the guy changed his mind. The two neighbors drained this horrible black goo out and put in fresh oil, and the van continued running with no ill effects.

If Chrysler still made the 3.3 (or even its brother the 3.8) I would probably have bought one instead of my Kia. But alas, the old iron V6 is no more.

In the entire time I worked as a Chrysler Service Advisor, I only had one 3.3 that was blown. That was because in 60,000 km, the owner had not changed the oil even once. It was amazing and a testament to the design it lasted that long if you had seen the sludgey mess that was under the valve covers!

The 3.3 was the perfect motor for the Caravan. Good torque, adequate power and fuel economy, easy servicing and practically unlimited service life.

While I worked with a six-wheel Chevy stake truck of that vintage. a ’51, we used it infrequently enough that I wasn’t ever under the hood. As the new kid on the crew, a small-town DPW, I hadn’t been around long enough to be honored with the Wheelman spot.

The stake truck was “The Pachyderm” – there was an industrial blower on the front, in front of the grille, ducting leading to a crude box on the stake body, and a long flexible accordian hose on a boom ending with a large slanted fitting. We used it to suck leaves, for homeowners and out of parks.

Thing really did resemble an elephant, with that trunk….

Anyway…never under the hood of it. When the battery failed (frequently) someone else would jump it. The industrial blower had its own engine and starter, but it was 12v while the truck was six…

A ’53 just sold at Barrett Jackson for $22,000… not bad, considering they were selling for $30-$50K five years ago… and of course, Steve McQueen drove a nice, will-used, patina-infused 1949 Chevy truck… don’t know how much it sold for, but pretty cool… personally, the 1948 to 1953 are my favorites, as they changed the grille chrome in ’54…

I like almost all old pickups but if I were to pick a favorite from the 50s I’d have to go with a 55 or 56 Chevy 3100. Of course I’d probably jump on any old rig if the price and condition were right.
I’m not typically into “rat rods” but this 53 really kinda grabbed me. http://tinyurl.com/53ratrod

I frequently see these trucks for sale, sans drivetrain for some odd reason. That 250, rebuilt and warmed over with some Clifford goodies and mated to a modern 4 or 5-speed manual transmission would make for a sweet ride.

I wonder if much of the reason why you see so many sans drivetrain is explained by MarcKyle and chas108’s comments, earlier in this thread.

People buy them and drive them until the engine dies, then decide to pull out the old Stovebolt and swap in a SBC they acquire for peanuts (or have lying around)…at which point the project comes to a screeching halt.

Too many obstacles for the shadetree mechanic, all the way from the engine bay to the rear differential.

Much of what I’ve learned over the years comes from what I’ve messed up in the past…some of those mistakes were time-consuming and expensive…

Some people seem born mechanics. I love to wrench too but not without the factory service manual or AllData DIY. The engine swap stuff might require a couple manuals…one for the drivetrain, one for the body. I consider myself a so-so mechanic but a great parts changer.

2 cool things about Chevrolet:

1) As stated above they stuck with many common parts for years and years.
2) Their popularity among car people means pretty much anything you want to do is something someone else has tried before and then blogged about it.

Not a super-easy project to upgrade the drivetrain, but not a total nightmare either.

Places like Fatman Fabrications, The Truck Shop, Classic Performance Parts, and Classic Industries sell everything needed to update the underpinnings on these old war horses. Most of them are designed to bolt in wth little or no hacking, drilling, or welding.

Oddly enough, while the Chevies were only available with the six, their GMC siblings were available with optional V8s borrowed from Oldsmobile and / or Pontiac.

As far as I can tell, while the GMC got the a Hydramatic a couple of years before Chevy, the Pontiac design V-8 did not arrive until ’55, the same year Pontiac went from an I-8 to V-8. GMC had bigger sixes than Chevy in this series.

I saw a lot of these trucks around when I was a kid too. Not only that, but I knew two different families who used them for personal transportation in the mid-1950’s. Both of them were older than the ’51 shown – one was a ’48, I think; the other a ’50, but they were both the same blue color, and both column-shift 3-speeds.

My grandfather in southern California was way ahead of most people in that respect though; until he died in the late 1950’s his only vehicle was a 1939 Chevy half-ton pickup…same color blue.

Considering that GM’s new post war trucks came out far sooner than their new post war cars as well as the fact that these trucks are known for lasting very long, my suspision that both GM bean counters and GM engineers have consistantly favored trucks for many, many decades is one step closer to being confirmed.

Still see a few of these (or GMC’s) on farms, normally with a 12-16′ tray and dual rear wheels. I didn’t pay too much attention at the time but I think I might have seen one on the weekend – I was distracted by a couple of WWII Blitz trucks & a Commer. It actually looks funny to see one with a ‘traditional’ pickup bed.

I am about to restore a 1951 3100 that I have had for 40 years. I’d like to put in a 292 with new transmission, replace the leaky torque tube, and faster rear end. Has anyone done this or put in a 292? Does a 292 go in easily?